DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 17-23 are pending. Claims 6, and 15-16, have been canceled. Claims 21-23 are new. Claims 1-3, 11-13, 17 and 20 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1-5, 7-14, and 17-23 rejected under 35 USC 101, applicant argues that even assuming arguendo the claims do recite a judicial exception (e.g. a mental process or mathematical concept), and that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application that at least improves the technical field of minimizing the impact of vegetation in the electrical grid operations and that the claims reflect the improvements, optimizing the utility’s operations and maintenance program spend by systematically identifying the extent of causes of power loss and, in turn prioritizing the resolution of various environmental issues through the analyzing, generating, prioritizing, and directing operations in claim 1; and systematically identify the extent of vegetation and other environmental causes of power loss and in turn may optimize efficiency of the utility’s operations and maintenance spending by prioritizing the resolution of the various environmental issues (see last paragraph on page 9 of the remarks). Applicant further submits that the improvements reflected in the claims do not generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use because the specific limitations act in concert to transform raw data into directing, in near-real-time, maintenance operations on an electrical grid (See first paragraph on page 11 of the remarks).
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claimed language do not reflect the alleged improvements, as such the claimed language merely recite an intended use of the abstract idea which falls under additional elements added to the abstract idea and insignificant pre and post solution activities recited at a high level of generality such as data gathering recited at a high level of generality, directing, via input-output circuitry maintenance operations on the electrical grid… which is mere input/output instructions and insignificant post solution activities that amount to mere output of instructions/information with the intended use of remediate the cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment between the two devices at the location… based on the prioritization, since no actual remediation is taking place. The input-output circuitry amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer which is being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception, (i.e. “direct maintenance operations… based on prioritization”), said maintenances operations being directed via input-output circuitry which amounts to post solution activities in which data is outputted and do not amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As such the steps of calculating… a change in impedance…; analyzing… the change in impedance in the electric line segment…; generating… a cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment…; prioritizing… remediation of the cause of the change in the impedance…; and directing…maintenance operations are abstract ideas which falls under at least under one of the three groupings of abstract ideas i.e. mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities. The additional claim elements of “a control system”, “a multi-class classification machine learning model…comprising a convolutional neural network”, and “input-output circuitry” which amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer to implement the judicial exception and to mere data gathering recited at high level of generality i.e. (receiving telemetry data), generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use in which the results are merely output and are not used as to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant further submits that the machine learning model may further refine the cause of the change in impedance between two devices to a narrower location (e.g., the particular tree location) and as such , an operation and maintenance crew may more quickly and efficiently identify and respond to problematic vegetation and improving by analyzing generating, prioritizing, an directing operations in claim 1 (see first paragraph on page 10).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that the additional recited element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, (i.e. a multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system, the multi-class classification machine learning model comprising a convolutional neural network trained on a plurality of previously calculated changes in impedance in the electric line segment), to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 below. The claims do not recite any details regarding how the AI/ML algorithm or model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the ” a multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of ” a multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system” to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence1; and Example 47, ineligible claim 2.
Applicant submits that the Office Action, however, seemingly overlooks these improvements in determining the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter as the Office Action asserts that “directing, via input-output circuitry, maintenance operation of the electrical grid” as insignificant post solution activity and submits that this is directly related to minimizing the impact of vegetation in electrical grid operations by enabling maintenance crews to quickly and efficiently respond to problematic vegetation and therefore these claim elements should not be considered insignificant pre or post solution activity (see second paragraph on page 10).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that the additional claim element the applicant relies on is considered to be part of the abstract idea since it amounts to mental processes which can be performed in the human mind or by the use of pen and paper and certain methods of organizing human activity and cannot be considered as an improvement to the technology or technological field. The argued limitation merely amount to instructions to direct a maintenance operation and the claim as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since claimed invention do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field and since the claim do not include components or steps of the invention that can be considered an improvement.
Applicant argues in last paragraph of page 10 that the claims are analogous to Diamond v. Diehr in a favorable manner as the claim carries out a technological process in which a fiber optic network enables receiving data in near-real-time, a multi-class classification machine enables determining causes of changes in impedance at locations of the causes, prioritizing the causes enables input-output circuitry, and directing maintenances operations in near-real-time based on the prioritized causes of changes in impedance and the locations of the causes.
In response, the examiner disagrees and points to the fact that in Diamond v. Diehr, in the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. It is noted that in the instant application, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable technological process. Instead the additional elements in the claim appear to merely be generic computing elements and insignificant extra-solution activity merely gathering the relevant data necessary which is the input for the mental process/math in the abstract idea, and then outputting a result of the abstract idea. Based on these considerations, the additional elements in the claim do not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that current claims are not analogous to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., as the claims in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. fails to include additional limitations that utilize the composite indicator, such as directing operations based on the composite indicator (see first paragraph on page 11 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that similarly to the claims in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Astrom S.A. 830 F.3d 1350, the claims of instant application do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis (i.e. calculations, generating, prioritizing and directing maintenance operations via input-output circuitry), stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to a technical means for performing the functions nor recite additional claim elements that can be considered an advance over conventional computer and power system technology. Similarly to the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Astrom S.A. 830 F.3d 1350, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. Instant application claims merely recite a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then issuing directions via input-output circuit, and do not include any additional elements as to be considered and improvement to the technology or technical field. Furthermore, the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers i.e. intelligent electronic device (IED) as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use general purpose computers as tools to implement the judicial exception. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Furthermore, instant application claims do not reflect the use of a specific technique to improve the functionality of the electric power protection system nor reflect an improvement in power system technology and the focus of the claims is not on specific asserted improvements to the power system technology and therefore the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicant submits that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation because the entire claim scope cannot be practically performed mentally”; that “the human mind is not equipped to perform a claim to a specific time-estimation method for computers involving computer communication and a several-step manipulation of data”; and that “the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves the functioning of a computer” (see penultimate and last paragraph on page 11 of the remarks).
In response the examiner submits that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process - the use of electronic means for performing the abstract idea is not enough to overcome Step 2A Prong 1 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FED. REG. 4 (January 7, 2019) at p. 8 footnote 54 further citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316-18 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where the electronic implementation of human activity was not adequate to overcome Step 2A Prong 1).
Although applicant argues that a computer is recited in order to implement the abstract idea, the use of the general purpose computer is used as a tool to implement the abstract idea and as such it is not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application since as such it merely amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), and as such do not amount to an improvement to the technology or technological field.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, claims 1-5, 7-14, and 17-23, stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, support for the recited step of “directing, in near-real-time, via input-output circuitry, maintenance operations on the electrical grid to remediate vegetation at the location along the electric line segment before remediation of vegetation at the other location along the other electric line segment based on the prioritization” cannot be found in the original disclosure of the invention nor in the portions of the original disclosure of the invention cited by the applicant.
The original disclosure of the invention discusses in para. 0007 “[f]rom this estimated power loss information, a control system can systematically identify the extent of vegetation and other environmental causes of power loss, and in turn may optimize efficiency of the utility's operations and maintenance program spend by prioritizing the resolution of the various environmental issues”, para. 0034 discuss that “near-real-time exchange of information between various active devices in the environment” and that “[t]hrough the fiber optic network, a control system can capture of impedance, voltage, and current at various points along line segments in the electric grid, and may systematically identify the extent of vegetation and other environmental causes of power loss, and in turn may optimize efficiency of the utility's operations and maintenance spending by prioritizing the resolution of the various environmental issues”, para. 0040 recite that “by identifying changes over time in delta impedance change, example embodiments may further utilize machine learning modeling to identify the likely extent of the delta impedance change, the rate at which is it change, and that the cause of the change in delta impedance is vegetation, thereby enabling proper prioritization of any necessary remediation”.
Although the original disclosure of the invention discuss proper prioritization of necessary remediation (para. 0007), and resolution of various environmental issues (para. 0034), enabling any proper prioritization of any necessary remediation (see para 0040-41), and that “an operation and maintenance crew may more quickly and efficiently and respond to problematic vegetation” (see para. 0061), however, the original disclosure of the invention do not provide support for the step of “directing, in near-real-time, via input-output circuitry, maintenance operations on the electrical grid to remediate vegetation at the location along the electric line segment before remediation of vegetation at the other location along the other electric line segment based on the prioritization”. Clarification and correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-14, 17-19, and 21-23, are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for the reasons discussed with respect to respective independent claims 1 and 11 from which they respectively depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, as exemplary, is summarized below in abbreviated form
A method for predicting causes of changes in power loss along electric line segments, the method comprising:
receiving, by a control system in near-real-time via a fiber optic network, telemetry data from a set of devices in an electrical grid, wherein the telemetry data includes data packets transmitted in sub-second intervals from the set of device in the electrical grid;
storing, by the control system, the telemetry data in a memory;
calculating, by the control system and using the telemetry data, a change in impedance in an electric line segment between two devices from the set of devices;
analyzing, by a multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system, the change in impedance in the electric line segment, the multi-class classification machine learning model comprising a convolutional neural network trained on a plurality of previously calculated changes in impedance in the electric line segment, a plurality of known causes of the previously calculated changes in impedance, and a plurality of locations of the known causes of the previously calculated changes in impedance;
generating, by the multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system, a cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment between the two devices and a location along the electric line segment of the cause of the change in impedance as output of the multi-class classification machine learning model, the cause of the change in the impedance comprising a determined cause category of sever vegetation; and
prioritizing, in near-real-time and based on the cause of change in the impedance comprising the determined cause category of severe vegetation, remediation of the cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment between the two devices over remediation of another cause of another change in impedance at another location along another electric line segment between another two devices from the set of devices based on the other cause of the other change in impedance in the other electric line segment comprising a determined cause category of moderate vegetation.
directing, in near-real-time via input-output circuitry, maintenance operations on the electrical grid to remediate vegetation at the location along the electric line segment before remediation of vegetation at the other location along the other electric line segment based on the prioritization.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, “2019 PEG’). The patent subject
matter eligibility analysis is threefold. First, via step 1, determine that the claim belongs
to a valid statutory class. Second, via step 2A, identify that an abstract idea is claimed in
prong one and if so, identify whether additional elements are recited that integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application in prong two. Finally, in step 2B, determine
whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to step 1, applied to the present application, the claims belong to
one of the statutory classes of a process (method claims 1-10); a product (apparatus of claims 11-19).
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the
abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts,
mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1, summarized above in steps c-f, recites an abstract idea being highlighted in bold shown above, which include a mixture of two groupings of abstract ideas.
In claim 1, the limitations set forth in steps c-f of summarized steps of claim 1, and highlighted in bold (i.e. calculating… a change in impedance in an electric line segment between two devices from the set of devices; analyzing the change in impedance in the electric line segment…; generating, a cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment between the two devices and a location of the cause of the change in impedance…; prioritizing, in near-real-time, remediation of the cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment …; and directing, in near-real-time via input-output circuitry, maintenance operations on the electrical grid…), can be considered to describe human activities and concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea. The limitations not in bold are considered to be additional elements that are not part of the abstract idea and need to be addressed in prong 2.
In summary, the highlighted steps in summarized claim 1 above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
Prong 2, of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional element(s) in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
In claim 1 above, the additional elements have been left in normal font. The limitations considered additional elements claimed are “receiving, by a control system in near-real-time via a network, telemetry data from a set of devices in an electrical grid, wherein the telemetry data includes data packets transmitted in sub-second intervals from the set of device in the electrical grid; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and storing, by the control system, the telemetry data in a memory; …output of the multi-class classification machine learning model trained”, and the “electric line segments” merely ties in the abstract idea to a field of use and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored (i.e. directing, …via input-output circuitry, maintenance operations on the electrical grid…) as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and only pertains as to where the data comes from in performing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, i.e. a multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system, the multi-class classification machine learning model comprising a convolutional neural network trained on a plurality of previously calculated changes in impedance in the electric line segment, to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claims do not recite any details regarding how the AI/ML algorithm or model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the ” a multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of ” a multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system” to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence2; and Example 47, ineligible claim 23.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements
are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does
not recite a specific machine. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or
reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not
contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which
describe a particular technology or technical field, which is being improved by the use of
the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from
Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing
process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the
mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of
a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a
better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite
carrying out any comparable technological process.) Instead the additional elements in
the claim appear to merely be generic computing elements and insignificant extra-
solution activity - merely gathering the relevant data necessary which is the input for the
mental process/math in the abstract idea, and then outputting a result of the abstract
idea. Based on these considerations, the additional elements in the claim do not appear
to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, the claim would tend
to monopolize the abstract idea itself, across a wide variety of different practical
applications in the general field-of-use.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the
additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. The considerations in this case are essentially the same as the
considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion
that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality (steps a, b and e) and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)(3); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
In claim 1 above, the additional elements have been left in normal font. The limitations considered additional elements claimed are “receiving, by a control system in near-real-time via a network, telemetry data from a set of devices in an electrical grid, wherein the telemetry data includes data packets transmitted in sub-second intervals from the set of device in the electrical grid; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and storing, by the control system, the telemetry data in a memory. The courts have decided that receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Furthermore, the courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)(3)).
Therefore, claims 1, is rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-10 and 21-23, when each is analyzed as a whole, are similarly held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims only recite further limitations which are part of the abstract idea discussed previously, and do not recite any additional elements which are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to make the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations merely add further details as to the type of data being received/input and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, and also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea at Prong 1.
Claims 2-4, 7-10 and 21-23 further expands on the abstract idea by appending additional steps which can be considered to describe concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers for calculating, by the control system, a difference between the measures of the impedance in the electric line segment from the two devices, (claim 8); calculated changes in the impedance in the electric line segments between the two devices,…determined cause of the change in impedance… is determined cause category comprising mild vegetation, moderate vegetation or severe vegetation (claim 9);” training, …the multi-class classification machine learning model using a historical training data set comprising the plurality of previously calculated changes in impedance in the electric line segment labeled with the plurality of known causes of the previously calculated changes in impedance” (claim 10), and which includes data characterization (i.e. wherein the telemetry data from a particular device in the set of devices includes impedance, voltage, or current at a position along an electric line corresponding to the particular device, claim 4; determined cause category comprising mild vegetation, moderate vegetation or severe vegetation (claim 9), “adjusting the cause of change to account for at least one of start or stop of single-phase motor” and mere data characterization (claim 22).
Although the claims 2-4, 7-10 and 21-23 do not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the steps in claims 2-4, 7-10, and 21-23 discussed above, therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
Prong 2, of Step 2A
With respect to claim 2-4, 7-10, and 21-23 the claims recite additional elements related which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use, (i.e. telemetry data received via fiber optic network…, claim 2; telemetry data received in a wavelength-division multiplexed signal, claim 3; claim 8; retrieving…the plurality of previously calculated changes in the impedance in the electric line segment between the two devices claim 9; receiving input from downstream demand, claim 23) and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and only pertains as to where the data comes from in performing the abstract idea and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored (i.e. generating an alert on a user interface, claim 21) as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and only pertains as to where the data comes from in performing the abstract idea.
.
Prong 2, of Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)(3); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-10 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11, as exemplary, as presented below recites:
An apparatus for predicting causes of changes in power loss along electric line segments, the apparatus comprising a processor and a memory storing software instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to:
receive, in near-real-time via a fiber optic network, telemetry data from a set of devices in an electrical grid, wherein the telemetry data includes data packets transmitted in sub-second intervals from the set of device in the electrical grid;
store the telemetry data in a memory;
calculate, using the telemetry data, a change in impedance in an electric line segment between two devices from the set of devices;
analyze, by a multi-class classification machine learning model, the change in impedance in the electric line segment, the multi-class classification machine learning comprising a convolutional neural network model trained on a plurality of previously calculated changes in impedance in the electric line segment and a plurality of known causes of the previously calculated changes in impedance, and a plurality of locations of the known causes of the previously calculated changes in impedance;
generate, by the multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by control system, a cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment between the two devices and a location along the electric line segment of the cause of the change in impedance as output of the multi-class classification machine learning model, the cause of the change in the impedance comprising a determined cause category of sever vegetation; and
prioritize, in near-real-time, and based on the cause of the change in the impedance comprising the determined cause category of sever vegetation, remediation of the cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment between the two devices over remediation of another cause of another change in impedance at another location along another electric line segment between another two devices from the set of devices based on the other change in impedance in the other electric line segment comprising a determined cause category of moderate vegetation
direct, in near-real-time via input-output circuitry, maintenance operations on the electrical grid to remediate vegetation at the location along the electric line segment before remediation of vegetation at the other location along the other electric line segment based on the prioritization.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, “2019 PEG’). The patent subject
matter eligibility analysis is threefold. First, via step 1, determine that the claim belongs
to a valid statutory class. Second, via step 2A, identify that an abstract idea is claimed in
prong one and if so, identify whether additional elements are recited that integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application in prong two. Finally, in step 2B, determine
whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the
abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts,
mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 11, summarized above in steps c-f, recites an abstract idea being highlighted in bold shown above, which include a mixture of two groupings of abstract ideas.
In claim 11, the limitations set forth in steps c-f of summarized steps of claim 1, and highlighted in bold (i.e. calculate,… a change in impedance in an electric line segment between two devices from the set of devices; analyze,… the change in impedance in the electric line segment; generate, … a cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment between the two devices and a location of the cause of the change in impedance as output of the multi-class classification machine learning model trained on the plurality of previously calculated changes in impedance in the electric line segment; and prioritize, in near-real-time, …remediation of the cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment …, direct…maintenance operations on the electrical grid to remediate vegetation at the location along the electric line segment….), can be considered to describe human activities, concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea. The limitations not in bold are considered to be additional elements that are not part of the abstract idea and need to be addressed in prong 2.
In summary, the highlighted steps in summarized claim 11 above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
Prong 2, of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional element(s) in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
In claim 11 above, the additional elements have been left in normal font. The limitations considered additional elements claimed are “receiving, …, telemetry data from a set of devices in an electrical grid, wherein the telemetry data includes data packets transmitted in sub-second intervals from the set of device in the electrical grid; storing, …, the telemetry data in a memory; …output of the multi-class classification machine learning model trained”, which is mere data gathering/output in which the results of the algorithm are outputted as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the “electric line segments” merely ties in the abstract idea to a field of use and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and only pertains as to where the data comes from in performing the abstract idea, and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored (i.e. directing, via input-output circuitry, maintenance operations on the electrical grid…) as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and only pertains as to where the data comes from in performing the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites the additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, (i.e. a multi-class classification machine learning model…comprising a convolutional neural network…, the multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system…), to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claims do not recite any details regarding how the AI/ML algorithm or model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the “a multi-class classification machine learning model comprising a convolutional neural network…, the multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of “a multi-class classification machine learning model comprising a convolutional neural network…, the multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system” to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence4; and Example 47, ineligible claim 25.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements
are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does
not recite a specific machine. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or
reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not
contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which
describe a particular technology or technical field, which is being improved by the use of
the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from
Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing
process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the
mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of
a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a
better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite
carrying out any comparable technological process.) Instead the additional elements in
the claim appear to merely be generic computing elements and insignificant extra-
solution activity - merely gathering the relevant data necessary which is the input for the
mental process/math in the abstract idea, and then outputting a result of the abstract
idea. Based on these considerations, the additional elements in the claim do not appear
to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, the claim would tend
to monopolize the abstract idea itself, across a wide variety of different practical
applications in the general field-of-use.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the
additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. The considerations in this case are essentially the same as the
considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion
that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality (steps a, b and e) and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)(3); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 11, is rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 12-14 and 17-19, when each is analyzed as a whole, are similarly held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims only recite further limitations which are part of the abstract idea discussed previously, and do not recite any additional elements which are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to make the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations merely add further details as to the type of data being received/input and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, and also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea at Prong 1.
Claims 12-14, and 17-19 further expands on the abstract idea by appending additional steps which can be considered to describe concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers for calculating, by the control system, a difference between the measures of the impedance in the electric line segment from the two devices, (claim 18); calculated changes in the impedance in the electric line segments between the two devices,…determined cause of the change in impedance… is determined cause category comprising mild vegetation, moderate vegetation or severe vegetation (claim 19); and which includes data characterization (i.e. wherein the telemetry data from a particular device in the set of devices includes impedance, voltage, or current at a position along an electric line corresponding to the particular device, claim 14; determined cause category comprising mild vegetation, moderate vegetation or severe vegetation (claim 19)).
Although, the claims 12-14, 17-19 do not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the steps in claims 12-19 discussed above, therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
Prong 2, of Step 2A
With respect to claim 12-14, and 17-19, the claims recite additional elements related which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use, (i.e. telemetry data received via fiber optic network…, claim 12; telemetry data received in a wavelength-division multiplexed signal, claim 13; receives the telemetry data from the set of devices periodically, claim 18; retrieving…the plurality of previously calculated changes in the impedance in the electric line segment between the two devices ) and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and only pertains as to where the data comes from in performing the abstract idea.
Prong 2, of Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)(3); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Claim 20, as shown below in recite:
20. A computer program product for predicting causes of changes in power loss along electric line segments, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing software instructions that, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to:
a. receive, in near-real-time via a fiber optic network, telemetry data from a set of devices in an electrical grid, wherein the telemetry data includes data packets transmitted in sub-second intervals from the set of device in the electrical grid;
b. store the telemetry data in a memory;
c. calculate, using the telemetry data, a change in impedance in an electric line segment between two devices from the set of devices; and
d. analyze, by a multi-class classification machine learning model, the change in impedance in the electric line segment with a, the multi-class classification machine learning comprising a convolutional neural network trained on a plurality of previously calculated changes in impedance in the electric line segment, a plurality of known causes of the previously calculated changes in impedance, and a plurality of locations of the known causes of the previously calculated changes in impedance;
e. generate, by the multi-class classification machine learning model, a cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment between the two devices and a location along the electric line segment of the cause of the change in impedance as output of the multi-class classification machine learning model the cause of the change in the impedance comprising a determined cause category of severe vegetation; and
f. prioritize, in near-real-time, and based on the cause of the change in the impedance comprising the determined cause category of severe vegetation, remediation of the cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment between the two devices over remediation of another cause of another change in impedance at another location along another electric line segment between another two devices from the set of devices based on the other cause of the other change in impedance in the other electric line segment comprising a determined cause category of moderate vegetation.
g. direct, in near-real-time via input-output circuitry, maintenance operations on the electrical grid to remediate vegetation at the location along the electric line segment before remediation of vegetation at the other location along the other electric line segment based on the prioritization.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, “2019 PEG’). The patent subject matter eligibility analysis is threefold. First, via step 1, determine that the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Second, via step 2A, identify that an abstract idea is claimed in prong one and if so, identify whether additional elements are recited that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in prong two. Finally, in step 2B, determine whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the
abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts,
mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 20, summarized above in steps c-f, recites an abstract idea being highlighted in bold shown above, which include a mixture of two groupings of abstract ideas.
In claim 20, the limitations set forth in steps c-f of summarized steps of claim 20, and highlighted in bold (i.e. calculate,… a change in impedance in an electric line segment between two devices from the set of devices; analyze,… the change in impedance in the electric line segment, the multi-class classification machine learning model… trained on a plurality of previously calculated changes in impedance in the electric line segment and a plurality of known causes of the previously calculated changes in impedance; generate, … a cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment between the two devices and a location of the cause of the change in impedance as output of the multi-class classification machine learning model trained on the plurality of previously calculated changes in impedance in the electric line segment; and prioritize, …remediation of the cause of the change in the impedance in the electric line segment; and direct…maintenance operations on the electrical grid to remediate vegetation at the location….), can be considered to describe human activities, concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea. The limitations not in bold are considered to be additional elements that are not part of the abstract idea and need to be addressed in prong 2.
In summary, the highlighted steps in summarized claim 20 above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
Prong 2, of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional element(s) in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
In claim 20 above, the additional elements have been left in normal font. The limitations considered additional elements claimed are “receiving, …, telemetry data from a set of devices in an electrical grid, wherein the telemetry data includes data packets transmitted in sub-second intervals from the set of device in the electrical grid; storing, …, the telemetry data in a memory; …output of the multi-class classification machine learning model trained”, which is mere data gathering/output in which the results of the algorithm are outputted as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the “electric line segments” merely ties in the abstract idea to a field of use and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and only pertains as to where the data comes from in performing the abstract idea, and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored (i.e. directing, via input-output circuitry, maintenance operations on the electrical grid…) as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and only pertains as to where the data comes from in performing the abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites the additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, i.e. a multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system, to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claims do not recite any details regarding how the AI/ML algorithm or model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the ” a multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of ” a multi-class classification machine learning model implemented by the control system” to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence6; and Example 47, ineligible claim 27.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements
are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does
not recite a specific machine. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or
reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not
contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which
describe a particular technology or technical field, which is being improved by the use of
the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from
Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing
process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the
mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of
a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a
better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite
carrying out any comparable technological process.) Instead the additional elements in
the claim appear to merely be generic computing elements and insignificant extra-
solution activity - merely gathering the relevant data necessary which is the input for the
mental process/math in the abstract idea, and then outputting a result of the abstract
idea. Based on these considerations, the additional elements in the claim do not appear
to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, the claim would tend
to monopolize the abstract idea itself, across a wide variety of different practical
applications in the general field-of-use.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the
additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. The considerations in this case are essentially the same as the
considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion
that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality (steps a, b and e) and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)(3); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-14, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
1 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/07/17/2024-15377/2024-guidance-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence
2 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/07/17/2024-15377/2024-guidance-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence
3 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf
4 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/07/17/2024-15377/2024-guidance-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence
5 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf
6 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/07/17/2024-15377/2024-guidance-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence
7 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf
Prosecution Insights